ML20237A376
| ML20237A376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1987 |
| From: | Kaplan H, Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237A362 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-87-32, IEIN-87-043, IEIN-87-43, NUDOCS 8712140432 | |
| Download: ML20237A376 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000219/1987032
Text
[.
n
o.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-219/87-32
Docket No.
50-219
License No.
Priority
-
Category
Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation
P.O. Box 388
Forked River, New Jersey 08731
,_
Facility Name: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
Inspection At:
Forked River, New Jersey
Insp'ection Conducted: October 19-23, 1987
Inspector:
Mj . /(h
/1/kF7
H. J. Kaplan, Senior Reactor Engineer
~date
///f/87
Approved by:
f
J'.
R. Strosnider, Chief
date
Materials and Processes Section
-Inspection Summary:
Routine Unannounced Inspection on October 19-23, 1987
Report No. 50-219/87-32
Areas Inspected: Documentation for manufacture and installation of new fuel
racks, and licensee's response to NRC information Notice No. 87-43 " Gaps in
Neutron Absorbing Material in High Density Spent Fuel Storage."
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
,
l
8712140432 871208
j
ADOCK 05000219
1
G
i
_ - _ _
_
..
l
7
Details
'
1.0 Persons Contacted
GPU-Nuclear Corporation
-P. Fiedler, Vice President and Director of Operations
l
' B. DeMerchant, Licensing Engineer
J. Solakiewiez,. QA Engineering Manager
R. Thompson,. Core Engineering Manager
J. Barton, Deputy Director Plant Operations
~ J.F. Andrescavage, Plans and Programs Engineer
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
W. Bateman, Senior Resident Inspector
J. Wechselberger, Resident Inspector
2.0 Inspection Purpose
The purpose of this inspection was to review the documentation covering
the manufacture and installation of ten spent fuel modules (racks) as
described in Safety Esaluation Report 402-138-003. Also, information was
obtained regarding the licensee's response to NRC Information Notice No. 87-43
" Gaps in Neutron-Absorbing Material in High-Density Spent Fuel
Storage."
3.0 Manufacturing Information
The subject racks, identified as A through K were manufactured by Joseph
Oat Co, Camden New Jersey.
Manufacture was initiated in 1984, and
completed in 1985.
Technical Specification 1302-12-007, required the
racks to be designed and cor structed in accordance with ASME III, Section
NF. A review of the Joseph Oat document packages indicated that the rackr
1
were fabricated from annealed .048" .063" thick SA-240 type 316 L (low
'
carbon) stainless steel supplied by Allegheny Ludbm and Eastern Stain-
less Steel.
The inspector verified that the mater'al certifications
(mechanical properties and thickness) conformed to SA-240 and Joseph Oat
j
drawings 7470-77.
The material test reports indicated that the material
was furnished in the annealed condition and had successfully passed ASTM A
j
262 Practice A and E corrosion testing.
The filler material used was Type
1
308 L as verified by Sandvick material test report #45778.
)
Records were reviewed verifying that Joseph Oat welding procedures WPS
4101, 4309, 4310, 4303 & 4307 had been reviewed by the licensee.
The
document package also showed evidence that the racks had been subjected
to numerous dimensional checks, liquid penetrant inspection of all welds,
and " free path testing" of fuel cells to check for proper fuel bundles
movement. Traceability of materials was maintained with respect to
material certifications,
i
._ .
_
. _ _ _ _
_-_____-_-___L
-
-__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
_ ___ __- _ - __ -______ _ _
_
l
l
'
.
l
3
Documented evidence was presented to indicate that the licensee's QA
representative had verified or witnessed these inspection activities. A
review of nonconformance reports did not disclose any material
l
l
deficiencies.
Several dimensional deficiencies were recorded
They
l
however, were accepted by the licensee's Engineering Group.
4.0 Visual inspection
j
The inspector visually inspected a portion of the seam welds in module B,
~the only module which had not been installed in the fuel pool.
The welds
i
appeared to be in the as-welded condition.
No apparent surface defects
such as cracks or lack of fusion were observed.
These welds had been
liquid penetrant inspected as indicated in the document package.
5.0 Removal and Installation
The inspector reviewed work packages A15J-30138 and A15K-30138 covering
the removal of old racks and bases from the north end of the fuel pool
and replacing them with four new racks.
This work was performed by
Quadrex Energy Services Co.
Numerous QA hold points were documented
including cleanliness of equipment used, removal of rack connections,
rigging and torquing.
6.0 NRC Information Notice No. 87-43
The subject Information Notice, No. 87-43, dated September 8, 1987
recently alerted nuclear power facilities to a potentially significant
problem pertaining to gaps identified in the neutron absorber component
(Boraflex) of the high density spent fuel storage racks at Quad Cities
Unit 1.
These racks also were manufactured by Joseph Oat. The safety
concern is that certain gaps might reduce the margin of nuclear sub-
criticality in the fuel pool.
Boraflex, a Bisco Products trade name for
a boron carbide dispersion in an elastomeric silicone apparently undergoes
dimensional changes under radiation which results in gap formation.
The issue with regard to the gap problem may be confined to only racks
supplied by Joseph Oat, since Westinghouse racks used at Turkey Point have
not indicated the presence of gaps.
In this regard the nuclear industry
in cooperation with EPRI and Bisco is currently studying the problem to
determine the effect of rack design and manufacturing methods on the
consequence of stress, temperature and chemical environment on irradiated
Boraflex.
The method of attachment of the Boraflex to the stainless steel
wall of module may be very crucial.
In discussing this problem with the
l
licensee the inspector reviewed Bisco's QA document package indicating
that the Boraflex used in the new racks had been subjected to Quality
Assurance requirements specified in GPU Purchasing Specification PS-301,
Revision 0.
- _ _ _ _ _ - _
_ _
_ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _. _ _
_
_-
. _ _ _ _
e, -
t
4
,
The package included Elastomer / Boron carbide lot numbers, and reports
covering composition, physical properties and dimensional reports.
In
addition the licensee presented the Oyster Creek Spent . Fuel Rack In-Service
Surveillance Program Procedure 1002.6 Revision 1 which provides instruc-
tions for verifying the integrity of the Boraflex using material test
samples.
The samples are packets which house the Boraflex material
between stainless steel sheets in a configuration essentially the same as
in the fuel racks.
These test samples will be withdrawn and characterized
in accordance with specified intervals after exposure to irradiation under
short term and long term conditions, and the irradiated properties
compared to non-irradiated. The inspector recommended that in addition to
evaluating the test samples the licensee should consider inspecting the
racks for gaps in the Boraflex using underwater neutron radiography or
" blackness" tests as mentioned in information Notice No. 87-43.
The
licensee also repcrted that he had performed a criticality analysis of the
new. racks using the Quad City gap conditions ana concluded that no safety
problem would exist.
7.0 Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Findings (closed) 87-13-02
Violation 12
The licensee failed to hydrostatically test following rework of a feed-
water isolation valve V-2-11.
Although Plant Engineering specified a
requirement for hydrostatic test, the requirement was not included in the
Work Control Package (WCP) since the Weld Package Information Request
(WPIR) was not returned to the preparer of the WCP for its inclusion.
GPUN Welding Manual Procedure has been revised as Revision 3 to require
the completed WPIR to be returned to the preparer for inclusion of the
requirements in the WCP as 'a final step.
The valve was subsequently
hydrostatically tested as required.
8.0 Exit Meeting
The inspector met with licensee representatives identified in Paragraph 1,
on October 23, 1987.
No violations were identified. At no time during
the inspection was written material provided to the licensee.